The Donatio Constantini and

Valla’s Oratio Confronted

†

Imre Boba

University of Washington

Non ridere, non lugere
neque detestari, sed intelligere
Spinoza

The current scholarly opinion expressed in textbooks of medieval history, in refer-

ence works, and in monographs dealing with church-state relations is that the text of
a document referred to as the Donation of Constantine is “the most famous forgery in
history by which the Emperor Constantine was supposed to have resigned his crown and
the empire (in the West) into the hands of Pope Sylvester as compensation for having
been cured of leprosy by the Pope. . .. The Donation became a powerful weapon in the
spiritual armory of the medieval papacy and the foundation of papal ideology. . .. It was
accepted as a genuine document until centuries after its manufacture.”

1

It is normally

Lorenzo Valla, the erudite humanist scholar, who is given the credit for “establishing
incontrovertibly that the notorius Donation of Constantine was a huge fraud.”

2

The controversial text of the Donatio is actually the final part of a larger medieval

text referred to currently as Constitutum Constantini.

3

The text of the Donatio was

†

This essay was published in Italian translation as Imre Boba,“La Donatio Constantini e L’oratio del

Valla a Confronto.” Angelicum: Periodicum Trimestre Pontificiae Studiorum Universitatis a Sancto
Thoma Aquinate in Urbe. 67.2 (1990): 215-239. Professor Boba gave me a copy of this essay in English
when he first wrote it in the 1980s. Because the Italian publication is probably not easily accessible
to many readers of English, and because I think Professor Boba’s research merits a wider audience, I
am posting the original English version of the essay here on my web site, with the permission of his
widow, Elizabeth Boba.
—Eugene Webb

1

The Medieval World. Edited by Norman F. Cantor. Second edition, London 1968, 131-32.

2

Walter Ullmann, A Short History of the Papacy in the Middle Ages. London 1972, 317.

3

Only recently have several hundred extant manuscripts of the Donatio’s text been assembled,

scrutinized, and a stemma established. The two oldest texts, dating from the ninth century, provided
the basis for the currently accepted recension. The manuscript of the text used by Valla has not
yet been located, but it resembles the most corrupt forms known from the thirteenth and fourteenth
centuries.

The Donatio, in the form of a document, first appears as part of a larger hagiographic text referred

to currently as Constitutum Constantini. The first part of the Constitutum is known in histiography
as Vita Silvestri. The second part, the Donatio, has also been copied separately, and was included in
the revised versions of Gratian’s Decretum.

Imre Boba

page 1 of

17

included in a revised version of Gratian’s Decretum,

4

possibly by a pupil of his, some-

time in the latter part of the twelfth century. During the growing controversy between
the proponents and opponents of papal claims for authority in matters secular, the
already divergent manuscripts of the Donatio became the subject of criticism. The
authenticity of the text, construed to be an imperial document, was, in fact, brought
into question by Cusanus

5

some seven years earlier than Valla. It was, nevertheless,

Valla’s work that found broad dissemination during the Reformation and thereafter.
As indicated, it became a commonplace to refute the validity of the Donatio with ref-
erence only to Valla, without an independent evaluation of the incriminated text or a
critical re-reading of Valla’s refutation of it. A simple confrontation of the text of the
Donatio and Valla’s crititicism would, e.g., reveal that despite current opinions, the
Donatio had nothing to say about Emperor Constantine’s compensating Sylvester for
having been cured of leprosy.

Valla’s extensive study aimed at refuting the Donatio’s validity was written in 1440.

The oldest extant manuscript of his work, dated in 1451, bears the title De falso credita
et ementita Constantini Donatione.

6

Valla referred to this work of his as Oratio, and

said of it: nihil magis oratorium scripsi. In his Oratio Valla included the caveat:

And those who think he [i.e., the author of the Donatio] has told the truth,
and defend him—whoever they are—make themselves abettors and acces-
sories in his stupidity and madness. (Latin text: Valla: 37*, 40 and 38*,
1)

These words of Valla may be the reason why, for the past five hundred years or so,

scholars have not subjected to scrutiny the proposition that the Donatio Constantini
is a forgery, nor studied critically the more scholarly objections to the text raised by
Cusanus. Occasionally, scholars have voiced the opinion that there are some passages in
hagiography, in Canon Law, and in the history of the church to support the authenticity
of at least some parts of the Donatio but without any impact on prevailing opinion.

Some scholars at the time of Valla understood that historical facts indicated that

Constantine did, in fact, divide his territorial empire, even if illegally. Valla, however,

There are several editions of the Constitutum, the most recent editions being, e.g., in Fontes Iuris

Germanici Antiqui, vol. 10 (1968), 106 pp., introduction and recension by Horst Fuhrmann, followed
by an extensive study of a variety of texts and a recension by Johanna Petersmann, “Die kanonistische
Ueberlieferung des Constitutum bis zum Dekret Gratians,” Deutsches archiv, 30 (1974), 356-449.

In the present study all quotations from the Constitutum are from Fuhrmann’s recension, and only

the lines of the text are indicated, e.g., CC. 157-160.

4

The standard edition of the text of the Donatio only, as used in the Decretum, with variants in

notes, is available in Corpus Iuris Canonici, edited by A. Friedberg, Leipzig 1879, Dis. XCVI, c.13 and
c.14.

5

Nicolas of Cusa, De Concordantia Catholica, ed. G. Keller, 1959, 328-37.

6

The most recent edition of Valla’s work is by Wolfram Setz, Lorenzo Vallas Schrift gegen die

Konstantinische Schenkung, Tuebingen, 1975, 207 pages of bibliography and introduction followed by
50 pages of Valla’s text paginated separately (page numbers with an asterisk). Quotations from Valla’s
text in the present study are from the recension by Setz, and are indicated by references to pages and
lines, e.g., Valla:27*, 18-31.

Imre Boba

page 2 of

17

went a step further and argued that Constantine could not have legally divided the
empire, that he did not do so, and that, consequently, the whole Donatio was a forgery,
specifically, a forgery devised by the papacy to bolster its claims of temporal authority
over the western half of the former Roman Empire.

A scrutiny of representative samples from among the several hundred extant copies

of the Donatio reveals, however, that the text used for inclusion in the Decretum and
the texts criticized by Cusanus and Valla were rather late, abridged, and distorted
versions of extant texts from the ninth century. The text used by Valla contains even
more alteration than the already spurious forms in the Decretum. The forgery theory
as currently formulated, nevertheless, is still based solely on Valla’s opinion, without
recourse to an independent perusal of the archetype of the Donatio now available.
Unfortunately, the copy of the Donatio used by Valla has not yet been located, and we
have to assume that his quotations have been copied properly, even if from a distorted
text.

Valla’s understanding of the text at his disposal was that with the Donatio, Emperor

Constantine gave Sylvester, at that time bishop of Rome, spiritual supremacy over
the four patriarchal sees, handed over to him the insignia of imperial authority, and
relinquished to him secular supremacy over the western half of the empire, while he
himself moved to Constantinople, his new capital. One may note already here that
the Latin equivalents of the terms “spiritual supremacy,” “patriarchal sees,” “secular
supremacy” do not occur in any of the texts of the Donatio, not even in the version
used by Valla—but were introduced by him into the discussion of the text.

When one reads the oldest texts of the Donatio against the historical background of

the fourth century Rome and the Latin legal terminology of the time, it becomes clear
that the statements made in it are for the most part highly plausible, clearly nonpolitical
in nature, and similar to other well-attested concessions made by Constantine in favor
of Christians in the city of Rome and elsewhere. On the other hand, when one rereads
the Oratio, one is struck by the author’s limited knowledge of Roman history and of
fourth century government-related terminology. Comparing any of the texts of the
Donatio, even the version used by Valla, with that of the Oratio, one cannot escape the
conclusion that the Donatio has been criticized, ridiculed, and rejected by generations
of scholars who have understood and used in their evaluation of the text the meanings
of administrative terms, legal definitions and political references prevailing during the
Renaissance and subsequent centuries.

Consider, for instance, Valla’s interpretation, on occasion, of the term imperium

as “territory” (“meliorem a se imperii alienasse partem; imperii optima parte se abdi-
caret”) rather than as “power” or “sovereignty.” As a result of this misunderstanding,
the transfer of the center from which Emperor Constantine would exercise his political
power (imperium) became for Valla the division of a territorial empire with two heads
and two distinct administrations. Similarly, Valla interprets princeps, principatus to
mean “sovereign ruler,” “sovereign absolute rule,” as was for him the il principe and
form of government in Renaissance Italy during his own lifetime (note Valla’s phrase:
principes ac reges). In the fourth century the term princeps could be used, and was

Imre Boba

page 3 of

17

used, for any person in a position of leadership or supervision a primus inter pares,
as for instance, the head of a governmental division, e.g., the foreman of the scribes.
Furthermore, the title princeps, as used for the emperors, had no constitutional signif-
icance; in fact it was not an official title.

7

In the first part of his Oratio Valla expresses his views concerning the Donatio by

means of fictitious speeches delivered supposedly by Constantine’s sons, senators, and
friends, and by Sylvester, bishop of Rome, all of whom argue against the stipulations
of the Donatio. They interpret its content as amounting to a sharing of the emper-
orship and a total alienation of the western half of the empire (“imperium deposuisse
sacerdotibusque donasse; optima maximaque Imperii parte exuere; Silvestro Imperium
largire, tunc unum corpus in duas secabis partes, et ex uno duo efficies regna, dua
capita, dua voluntates. . .; partem regni donare. . .; partem Imperii cum regina orbis,
Roma, alteri tradere. . .”), from which it follows that all Roman officials in the western
half of the empire would have been removed (“a patris laribus, a conspectu natalia
soli, ab assueta aura, a vetusta consuetudine relegamus. Penates, fana sepulchra ex-
ules relinquemus, nescio ubi aut qua terrarum regione victuri. . . omnes ne revocamur”).
Sylvester himself argues, in Valla’s words, that Constantine was entitled to give the
realm only to his sons and that, therefore, he, Sylvester, declines to accept “the king-
dom of the world.”

Having proved by these fictitious speeches that the Donatio is concerned with a

division of the realm and with the creation of a Silvestrianum Imperium, Valla than
presents one of his own arguments, that the Donatio is a forgery on the grounds that
the donation, i.e., the bestowal of the western half of the realm, was never formally
accepted by the papacy (“quia non fit mentio de acceptatione, dicendum est non fuisse
donatum”). Surprisingly enough, there is no relation between the opinions expressed
in Valla’s speeches and the text of the Donatio. The texts, even the one used by Valla,
never mention the division of the realm, a transfer of Roman officials, or the creation of
two kingdoms. It is evident that since none of the extant texts of the Donatio uses such
terms as dividere, deponere, abdicare, donare, exuere, largiri (all used by Valla), nor
refers to any transfer of titles like Caesar, Dominus, Augustus, Maiestas or Imperator
(which would have been prerequisites for any Silvestrianum Imperium), the document—
whether forged or genuine—could hardly have stated what Valla understood it to say.

It is unfortunate that Valla, despite his present-day reputation as a textual critic,

did not follow his own methodology.

Instead of collecting a number of divergent

manuscripts and establishing a more reliable version of the text, as he was accustomed
to do in other enquiries, he based his conclusions, as already mentioned, upon one
of the most corrupt versions of the Donatio. Significant differences between the text
used by Valla and the archetype reconstructed only recently, occur already in the very
first sentence of the paragraph that introduces the specific stipulations of the Donatio.
Valla’s text reads:

In eo privilegio ita inter cetera legitur: [Nos Constantinus] utile iudicavimus

7

All legal terms appearing in the text of the Donatio are adequately defined in Pauly-Wissowa’s

Realencyclopaedie der klassischen Altertumwissenschaften.

Imre Boba

page 4 of

17

una cum omnibus satrapis nostris et universo senatu, optimatibus etiam et
cuncto populo imperio Romane ecclesie subiacenti, ut, sicut beatus Petrus
in terris vicarius Dei videtur esse constitutus, etiam et pontifices ipsius
principis apostolorum vicem, principatus potestatem amplius, quam terrene
imperialis nostre serenitatis mansuetudo habere videtur, concessam a nobis
nostroque imperio optineant. (Valla: p. 22*, 13-19)

But the phrase suggesting submission of all people to the power of the Roman Church
(“imperio Romane ecclesie subiacenti”) does not appear either in the oldest versions of
the Donatio or in the manuscript or printed versions of the Decretum. The oldest texts
state:

. . .utile iudicavimus una cum omnibus nostris satrapibus et universo sen-
atu, optimatibus etiam et cuncto populo Romano gloriae imperii nostri
subiacenti. . . (C.C., 157-160)

In the already corrupted text in the Decretum the emphasis has been shifted from a

subjection to the glory of Constantine’s imperium toward a subjection to the imperium
of the Glory of Rome:

et cuncto populo R o m a n a e g l o r i a e
i m p e r i o subiacenti. (Dis. XCVI, c.14.)

Since the differences between:

a. gloriae imperii nostri subiacenti of the oldest texts,

b. Romanae gloriae imperio subiacenti of the Decretum and

c. imperio Romanae ecclesiae subiacenti,

as quoted by Valla are rather substantial, one may legitimately ask whether Valla would
have written his Oratio had he had access to one of the oldest texts of the Donatio or
even to a text in the Decretum.

The ambiguity of the text used by Valla allowed him to draw the conclusion that

the people who were already subject to the Roman Church could not have had the
power to decide their own subjugation to the church: “How is it that they are said to
have decreed this very thing, that they should be subject and that he to whom they
are, already subject should have them as his subjects?” From this question follows one
of several accusations by Valla directed against the unnamed, but implied, perpetrator
of a hoax:

What else do you do, you wretch (infelix), other than admit that you have
the will to commit forgery, but not the ability? (Valla: 23*, 23-24)

On closer scrutiny even the text used by Valla could not have led to such a drastic

accusation if one realizes that imperium was not necessarily the “supreme authority of

Imre Boba

page 5 of

17

an emperor,” but also the delegated authority exercised by any official in the govern-
mental structure or the personal authority (prestige) of any citizen according to his
standing in the society. Thus any official and any pontifex had his imperium. Conse-
quently, the “imperium Romanae ecclesiae” is simply the ecclesiastical authority of the
praesbiterium of the Romana ecclesia over the members of that ecclesia, and not over
all the people of Rome and certainly not over all the people of the Roman Empire, as
implied by Valla.

In the entire opening statement of the Donatio (as transmitted in the more complete

texts), the emperor formulated the decision reached by himself, his officials, the senate
and the Christian community of Rome, that the vicars of St. Peter should receive from
Constantine’s imperium (i.e., by his imperial authority) more of the power of a princi-
pate (principatus potestas) than had already been conceded. Valla’s understanding of
the first statement of the introductory paragraph of the Donatio led to his comments
on the subsequent fragment that, as quoted by him, reads:

Eligentes nobis ipsum principem apostolorum vel eius vicarios firmos apud
Deum esse patronos. Et sicut nostra est terrena imperialis potentia eius
sacrosanctam Romanam ecclesiam decrevimus veneranter honorare et am-
plius, quam nostrum imperium et terrenum thronum sedem sacratissimam
beati Petri gloriose exaltari, tribuentes ei potestatem et gloriam et digni-
tatem, atque vigorem et honorificentiam imperialem. (Valla: p.23*, 25-30)

Valla subjected this fragment to a philological analysis, and concluded that the use

of some terms and of faulty Latin grammar reveal that the text was a forgery. Valla
suggested that the correct form should be “Constantine elected for himself patrons,”
instead of “Constantine elected himself to be patrons” (“Elegit sibi illos Constantinus
non patronos, sed esse patronos, interposuit illud esse, ut numerum redderet concin-
iorem.” Valla 23*, 35-37). Valla is wrong, however, if one notes that the text of the
Donatio, as quoted by himself, refers to the election of Peter and his vicars, and not
of patrons. They were elected to be patrons before God. Valla objected also to naming
the bishops of Rome “vicars of Peter.” His argument was that the term ‘vicar’ implied
that Peter was still alive, or, at best that the bishops of Rome are inferior to Peter (“Et
pontifices Romanos appellat vicarios Petri, quasi vel vivat Petrus, vel minori dignitate
sint ceteri quam Petrus fuit.” Valla 23*, 40f.) Valla understood that in the phrase “ter-
rena imperialis potentia” there should be a conjunction between the two adjectives. He
evidently did not realize that “terrena” goes with the phrase “imperialis potentia.”

Apparently the text quoted by Valla did not lend itself to criticism of substance.

But even Valla’s philological comments on that fragment or on any subsequent frag-
ment of the Donatio cannot be sustained if one reads the text with the tools and
achievements of modern classical philology and textual criticism. The statement be-
gins with Constantine asserting his secular authority: “. . .ours is the earthly imperial
power.” Therefore, the concrete concessions that follow could not diminish his secular
“imperial” power, but could only enhance the honors of the Church of Rome and the
power of the throne of blessed Peter above the honors and power of the earthly throne

Imre Boba

page 6 of

17

that remained in the control of the Emperor. None of the transferred attributes car-
ried political authority or a specific function. The text only expresses the view that
Constantine relinquished the supreme attributes of pagan Rome which were associated
with his predecessors’ “Gloria” and title “Dominus et Deus,” all this in favor of the
God of the Christians, the blessed Peter and his successors. In fact Constantine ceased
to be represented on Roman coins with divine symbols in 325, the year of the Nicene
Council. The concessions were made to all successors of St. Peter with the clear un-
derstanding that the pontiffs of Rome would have the task of interceding with God
(“firmos apud Deum esse patronos”) for the welfare of Constantine and, obviously, of
Constantine’s successors, the emperors.

The third, and final, fragment of the Introduction to the Donatio reads in Valla’s

rendering as follows:

Atque, decernentes sancimus, ut [sedes sacratissima beati Petri] principa-
tum teneat tam super quatuor sedes, Alexandrinam, Antiochenam, Ierosolim-
itanam, Constantinopolitanam, quam etiam super omnes in universo orbe
terrarum dei ecclesias. Etiam pontifex, qui per tempora ipsius sacrosancte
Rome ecclesie existerit, celsior et princeps cunctis sacerdotibus et totius
Mundi existat, et eius iudicio, que ad cultum Dei et fidem christianorum
vel stabilitatem procurandam fuerint, disponantur. (Valla, 24*, 17-23)

Valla’s version of the fragment, as quoted, contains another, this time less ambigu-

ous, deviation from the “standard” text. Where the oldest texts and even the version
in the Decretum read: “pontifex . . . princeps sacerdotibus totius mundi,” Valla’s version
reads: “pontifex princeps sacerdotibus et totius mundi.” Furthermore, Valla questioned
the grammatical correctness of the phrase princeps sacerdotibus (“first among sacer-
dotes”) and suggested that it should read princeps sacerdotum (“prince over the sac-
erdotes”). Thus in place of: “bishop. . . first among all the clergy of the whole world,”
Valla suggested that the text should correctly read and mean: “prince of the clergy and
of the whole world.” Valla agreed, however, that the See of Rome held a primacy over
the four enumerated churches, but argued that this primacy was given not by Constan-
tine, but by Christ himself. (Note that Valla assumed that the See of Rome existed
during the times of Christ: “. . . a Christo primatum acceperit Romana sedes. . .” Valla
24*, 33-34). Valla referred to the four sees as patriarchal, while none of the texts of the
Donatio, including the one used by Valla, ever mentions “patriarchal” sees. But Valla’s
insertion into the discussion of the term “patriarchal” allowed him to view the entire
document as an obvious forgery. (“Quid, quod multo est absurdius, capit ne rerum
natura, ut quis de Constantinopoli loqueretur tanquam una patriarchalium sedium, que
nondum esset, nec patriarchalis nec sedes, nec urbs christiana nec sic nominata, nec
condita nec ad condendum destinata?”) None of Valla’s objections is valid—certainly
not his criticism of the use of the term patriarchalis or reference to Constantinople,
both construed to be applied anachronistically. As for the reference to Constantinople,
the city had been known under that name at least since May 11

th

, 330, and, possibly,

already since the festive inauguration of public works in the ancient episcopal city of
Byzantium in 324 or the new capital’s consecratio in 328.

Imre Boba

page 7 of

17

Thus the entire introductory statement of the Donatio provides no support for

political or “imperial” claims by the bishops of Rome and, in fact, contradicts all the
extreme interpretations of Valla. The paragraph distinctly separates the terrestrial
imperial authority (“nostra est terrena imperialis potentia . . . nostrum imperium et
terrenus thronus”) from the supervision of ecclesiastical functions, now transferred to
the Church of Rome. It is self-evident that the author of the Donatio’s text did not
imply that the Church of Rome or the bishop of Rome would have political functions.
Any function envisaged for the bishop of Rome was strictly ecclesiastical; he would
be “first among equals” (princeps), and as such, he would be the arbiter among the
sacerdotes in controversies affecting worship (liturgy), belief (Christology) and firmness
(unity).

As it appears from the introductory statement of the Donatio, the intent of its

author was to separate the sacral from the secular. Most of the remaining text consists
of specific stipulations, similar to executive orders, implementing the concessions en-
visaged in the introductory statement. The first substantive paragraph of the Donatio,
numbered as such in the Decretum, is quoted here from Valla’s version, with corrections
supplied from the archetype:

Ecclesiis beatorum apostolorum Petri et Paulo pro continuatione (recte:
concinnatione) luminariorum possessionum predia contulimus, et rebus di-
versis eas ditavimus, et per nostram imperialem iussionem (recte: per nos-
tras imperialium iussionum sacras) tam in oriente quam in occidente quam
etiam a septentrione et meridionali plaga, videlicet in Iudea, Grecia, Asia,
Trachia, Africa et Italia vel diversis insulis, nostra[m] largitate[m] eis con-
cessimus, ea prorsus ratione, ut per manus beatissimi patris nostri Silvestri
summi pontificis [summi not in the C.C.] successorumque eius omnia dispo-
nantur. (Valla: 25*, 31-37)

Valla rejected the content of that paragraph with the argument that there were no

churches of Peter and Paul in Rome at the time of Constantine and that Christians
worshipped in private houses with no need for great lights (“O furcifer, ecclesie ne,
idest templa Rome erant Petro et Paulo dicate? Quis eas extruerat?”) (Valla: 26*, 1-2).
Valla, apparently was not aware of Constantine’s personal involvement in constructing
churches in Rome, among them churches of Peter and Paul. Most of Valla’s objections
are, however, philological and all of them misplaced. He understood luminaria (=
lamps) to be a wrong usage in the context, and he suggested lumina (= lights). The
logic is on the side of the Donatio’s author: one provides oil for lamps and the lamps
produce the light.

This paragraph remains immune to Valla’s criticism. It simply enumerates gifts

of landed possessions given to the churches of blessed Peter and Paul in Rome, and
indicates the purpose of such benefactions. In this paragraph the author of the Dona-
tio made use of such terms as nostra largitas (largesse, abundance, bounty, liberality),
possessio, praedium (a farm, estate, manor). All such terms imply private ownership,
and not regions or provinces that would carry secular administrative prerogatives or

Imre Boba

page 8 of

17

duties and, obviously, not “half of the Empire.” The possessions were scattered all
over the four regions of the (Roman) world: “in Judea, Graecia, Asia, Thracia, Africa
et Italia.” All these geographic terms, however, were used in the text in their Roman
usage as names of dioceses, and not of continents or countries, as understood by Valla.
(“Africa” during the time of Constantine was an administrative subdivision consist-
ing of a narrow strip along the Mediterranean coast of Africa, while “Asia” was the
westernmost diocese of what is today Asia Minor.) Furthermore, most of the gifts of
landed properties were scattered in the “East” of the Roman territory, and not in the
“West,” as would have been expected if Constantine had parted with the western half
of his territorial empire. But even in the “West,” the landed estates given are limited
in size. They are mere possessions in Italia.

Although the estates and farms donated may have been numerous, these were the

only tangible donations that Constantine gave to the Church of Rome. The author of
the Donatio’s text must have been aware of the nonpolitical, and even nonadministra-
tive nature of the transfer of the possessions when he noted that these possessions were
given explicitly to SS. Peter and Paul for the purpose of provisioning the lamps used
for the illumination (pro concinnatione luminariorum) of the saints’ churches.

It also seems evident that the transfer of landed estates was in the nature of an

endowment for the churches: votive gifts from Constantine’s res privata. In fact, the
term donatio, used as title for the text under scrutiny, is a precisely defined legal concept
of Roman law limited to private transactions (donatio inter vivos) related to the transfer
of tangible assets. The enumeration of the donation of landed estates occurring in the
text immediately after the introductory, statement (in the first numbered paragraph
in the Decretum as well as in the text used by Valla) may have prompted one of the
transcribers of the document to provide for it the title: Donatio Constantini. The
document in its oldest form, forged or genuine, obviously had no title. That the title is
an addition to the lost prototype is evident because most of the copies available actually
appear under a variety of titles. The scribe who associated the entire document with an
act of a donatio was probably interested in the legality of the claims to landed estates
by the Church of Rome. In the latter part of the twelfth century, when the text of the
Donatio was included in the Decretum, there was no special need to bolster Rome’s
claims for political authority, but there were disputes concerning ownership of landed
estates, especially in Italy. This observation seems to be corroborated by the brief
summary of the Donatio that was added by one of the earliest editors of the Decretum.
The marginal note reads:

Palea ista non legitur in scholis, in qua continetur privilegium, quod Con-
stantinus concessit Romanae Ecclesiae, scilicet ut primatum inter omnes
Ecclesias obtineret, et in quo posessiones, et insignia dignitatis ei conces-
sit. Et hoc fecit eo tempore, quo Constantinus ad partes Orientales se
transtulit, cum in eodem loco duo Pontifices non bene morarentur, et sta-
tuit, ut nulIus contra hoc privilegium veniret, et poenam minatur contra
facientibus. (Decretum Gratiani, Lugduni, 1613)

This summary evidently expresses the view of the person who placed the text of the

Imre Boba

page 9 of

17

Donatio into the Decretum and, certainly, of the medieval commentators.

Paragraphs two and three of the Donatio (numbered as such in the Decretum and

quoted in that order by Valla) enumerate additional gifts, as well as specific honors and
privileges, given to the bishop and clergy of Rome. Paragraph two in Valla’s version
reads:

Beato Silvestro, eius vicario, de presenti tradimus palatium imperii nos-
tri Lateranense, deinde diadema, videlicet coronam capitis nostri, simulque
phrygium necnon et superhumerale, videlicet lorum quod Imperiale circun-
dare solet collum, verum etiam chlamydem purpuream atque tunicam coc-
cineam et omnia imperialia indumenta seu etiam dignitatem imperialiem
presidentium equitum, conferentes etiam ei imperialia sceptra simulque
cuncta signa atque banna et diversa ornamenta imperialia et omnem pro-
cessionem imperialis culminis et gloriam potestatis nostre. (Valla: 27*,
11-18)

It would suffice to read only the last statement of the paragraph—the phrase in which
Constantine transferred to Sylvester only the glory of his power (“gloriam potestatis
nostre”) and not the power itself. Constantine gave also all the external symbols of that
glory. In addition to the Gloria and its symbols, the paraphernalia, Sylvester received
the dignity equal to that of the person presiding over the imperial administration, but
not the dignitas of the emperor himself. Finally, Constantine transferred the ownership
of the Lateran palace only, thus obviously excluding from the transfer other places in
Rome and Rome itself. The gift of the Lateran palace represents a transfer of dominium
utile, excluding any interpretation that would suggest the transfer of dominium eminens
over half of the empire or the sharing of imperial authority with the bishop of Rome.
Compared to the more complete texts of the Donatio, the version used by Valla, as
quoted above, contains minor omissions, the most significant being the sentence stating
that the concessions are not necessarily for Sylvester, but for the blessed Peter and Paul
and their successors in perpetuity (“beatissimis Petro et Paulo et per eos etiam beato
Silvestro . . . et omnibus eius successoribus pontificibus qui usque in finem mundi in sede
beati Petri erunt sessuri”). The scribe of the oldest text conveyed only the concept
that the successors of Sylvester would be pontifices for all times to come, and not
sovereign rulers over a share of the empire. The nonpolitical nature of the concessions
is evident also from the subsequent fragment of the Donatio (numbered as paragraph
three in the Decretum). The following rendering of Valla’s text of this fragment in two
columns is made in order to juxtapose the “secular and political” with the “sacral and
ecclesiastical.” Corrections and additions are based on the Donatio’s archetype:

Imre Boba

page 10 of

17

[Nos Constantinus. . .]

blank
blank
blank
blank
blank
blank

cuius amplissimus noster senatus
videtur gloria adornari, id est patri-
cios [atque] consules effici, necnon in
ceteris dignitatibus imperialibus

blank
blank

Et sicut imperialis extat decorata
militia,

blank
blank

Et quemadmodum imperialis poten-
tia diversis officiis, cubiculariorum
nempe et hostiariorum atque om-
nium concubitorum (recte:

excu-

bitorum), ordinatur,

blank
blank
blank
blank
blank
blank
blank
blank

et, sicut noster senatus calciamentis
(-a) utitur, cum udonibus, idest can-
dido linteamine, illustrentur (recte:
illustrari),

blank

sicut terrena

Viris etiam diversi ordinis,

rev-

erendissimis clericis sancte Romane
ecclesie servientibus, illud culmen,
singularis

potentie

et

precellen-

tie (recte:

precellentiam) habere

sancimus,

blank
blank
blank
blank

eos promulgavimus (promulgantes)
decorari.

blank

ita clerum sancte Romane ecclesie
ornari decrevimus.

blank
blank
blank
blank
blank

ita et sanctam Romanam ecclesiam
decorari volumus. Et ut amplissime
pontificale (-is) decus prefulgeat, de-
cernimus et, ut clerici sancti eius-
dem sancte Romane ecclesie map-
pulis et linteaminibus, idest can-
didissimo colore, decoratos equos eq-
uitent (recte: eorum decorari equos,
et ita equitari),

blank
blank
blank
blank

et ita celestia

blank

ad laudem Dei decorentur.

(Valla: 27*, 18-31)

blank

Again, the last statement of the paragraph—“ita celesta sicut terena ad laudem Dei

decorentur”—expresses the whole purpose of the concessions; to equate the clerics of
the heavenly order with the officials of the earthly order, for the glory of God.

Imre Boba

page 11 of

17

Valla’s criticism of the paragraph is based on glaring misinterpretations of the other-

wise straightforward text. Thus in his comments the equites became equitatus, i.e., the
Roman cavalry given over to the pontiff, and not a social class of actual and prospective
administrators and officeholders that remained under imperial authority. Valla under-
stood imperialis militia to mean milites, soldiers, while, in fact, militia was the class of
all servants of the emperor, civilian as well as military. Since the administrative reforms
of Valentinian I, civil servants were ranked as soldiers; the distinction, if necessary, was
expressed by the terms militia armata and militia officialis, respectively. Finally, Valla
apparently did not know that in pagan Rome the pontifices formed part of the impe-
rial administration with appropriate dignitates, and corresponding honores and vestes.
The paragraph unequivocally expresses the recognition by Constantine of the ecclesi-
astical Christian hierarchy in Rome and in Rome alone (“. . . clericis sancte Romane
ecclesie servientibus. . .; clerum sancte Romane ecclesie adornari decrevimus. . .; sanc-
tam Romanam ecclesiam decorari volumus.”) The paragraph actually corroborates the
concessions credited to Constantine in the Gesta Silvestri, in which one reads:

. . .patere volumus christianis ecclesias, ut privilegia que sacerdotes templo-
rum habere noscuntur, antistites christiane legis assumant.

8

With the decisions contained in this fragment of the Donatio, the Bishop of Rome

and the clergy of the Christian assembly in Rome (sancta Romana Ecclesia), many
of them non-Romans, non-citizens, or not yet “honorable” Romans, now received the
honors of the non-Christian sacerdotes of the Roman temples and of other officials of
the imperial administration, the highest recognition going to Bishop Sylvester (he was
made equal in dignity with the head of the equites). Thus the author of the Donatio,
whoever he may have been, must have been very familiar with the Roman system of
administration in the fourth century and the reforms effected under Constantine. In
other words, if he indeed forged the document, he reported something that appears to
be valid also without the document. The purpose of the forger could not have been the
creation of supporting evidence for papal claims of political supremacy and even less
so of imperial authority in the West.

The paragraph of the Donatio that follows (#5 in the Decretum) refers to a crown’s

being offered to Sylvester and his successors in honor of blessed Peter. This paragraph
contains the famous passage according to which Constantine took upon himself the
function of a groom (strator) to Sylvester. The paragraph concludes with the state-
ment that a skullcap (phrygium) should be worn by Sylvester and his successors in
imitation of Constantine’s imperium (ad imitationem imperii nostrii). Although the
phrase imitatio imperii and reference to a crown could have been utilized in arguments
supporting Valla’s contention, he did not attach to them any political significance.
Perhaps he realized that the imitatio referred only to the wearing of the phrygium in
festive processions and did not imply transfer or dividing of the imperial authority
itself. The imitatio imperii appears to have been restricted to festive processions and

8

Quoted from Christopher B. Coleman’s Constantine the Great and Christianity, New York 1914,

p. 226.

Imre Boba

page 12 of

17

was, therefore, another concession of honors, and not of functions. Evidently the phry-
gium, and not the crown, symbolized Constantine’s imperium. Nevertheless, medieval
and modern historiography became concerned mainly with the concept of transfer of
an imperial crown.

Valla himself, as already mentioned, did not see any significance in the offer of a

crown. He probably understood the relevant text to read as it was written, that the
crown was offered in honor of blessed Peter but, probably because of that, Sylvester
refused the acceptance of it. Valla, aware of the interpretations current during his own
time concerning an alleged imperial crown, simply denied (correctly) that emperors in
the fourth century were crowned. He raised the question, nevertheless, as to why the
crown was offered in honor of blessed Peter, and not of Christ, and if it was offered to
honor Peter, then “why did Constantine not dedicate the episcopal temple in Rome to
him, rather than to John the Baptist?” These questions, construed to be rhetorical,
have obviously no impact on the political significance of the crown, but were formulated
by Valla to show that the author of the Donatio did not know history and, hence, his
document was a forgery.

As it turns out, Constantine did indeed build a temple in honor of blessed Peter,

as well as one in honor of Jesus, and even more, but even if we had no documentary
evidence for a Constantinian church of Peter, the edifice still contains the bricks bearing
the emperor’s initials. The episcopal temple in Rome was, in fact, dedicated to Christ,
as Valla expected, and not to John the Baptist, as he apparently knew for a fact. This
temple, the Basilica of the Lateran, was renamed in honor of John only at the time of a
new consecration of the rebuilt edifice after it had been damaged during the earthquake
of 896. (Valla in his last years was a canon of St. John the Lateran!)

The problem of Constantine’s gift of the crown in honor of blessed Peter and not of

Christ arises from the corrupt version of the text used by Valla. His text did not include
the phrase ad laudem Dei, which in the more complete texts precedes the phrase pro
honore beati Petri. Valla’s text also lacked the statement that associated the symbols
of honor with episcopal functions only: “Silvestrio patri nostro, summo pontifici et
universalis urbis Romae papae, et omnibus eius successoribus pontificibus, qui usque
in finem mundi in sede beati Petri erunt sessuri. . .” (C.C., 216-218). Be it noted here
that many of the omissions from Valla’s text and from the text in the Decretum are
references to the episcopal functions of the bishop of Rome and his successors.

The subsequent paragraph quoted by Valla (#6 in the Decretum) may have been

the crucial one in forming his overall opinion, but, surprisingly enough, he did not
analyze the substance of the text, but only the allegedly poor choice of terms. Again,
the text, quoted here from Valla, is provided with some of the alternate readings in
parentheses, and the omissions, supplied here from the archetype, in brackets:

Unde ut pontificalis apex non vilescat, sed magis [amplius] quam imperii
terreni dignitas gloria et potentia (recte: terreni dignitas et gloriae poten-
tia) decoretur, ecce tam palatium nostrum quamque Romanam urbem et
omnes Italie sive occidentalium regionum provincias (recte: Romanae urbis
et omnes Italiae seu occidentalium regionum provincias), loca [et] civitates

Imre Boba

page 13 of

17

beatissimo pontifici et universali pape Silvestro tradimus atque relinquimus
et ab eo et a successoribus eius [pontificum potestati et ditioni firma im-
perialis censura per hanc nostram divalem sacram] et per pragmaticum
constitutum decrevimus disponendas (recte: decernimus disponenda) atque
iuri sancte Romane ecclesie permanendas (recte: concedimus permanenda).
(Valla: 33*, 24-30 )

In his comments, Valla questioned the adequacy of the geographic definitions of

the “ceded” territories. In his view the terms are anachronistic, thus the text reveals
the work of a clumsy forger. The contrary seems to be the case. Valla apparently was
not familiar with the administrative reorganizations that took place under Diocletian
and Constantine and, consequently, he did not know the precise names of administra-
tive units as of the fourth century. The small units of provinciae under Constantine,
construed as such also by the author of the Donatio, in Valla’s understanding were
“provinces which now have separate kings or rulers equal to kings, and more than one
to each.” Valla did not know that in the fourth century the dioecesis was the larger
administrative unit and not the provincia as in his own times. Valla noticed a contra-
diction in the use of references to provinces of Rome and provinces of Italia, but he
was not aware that there was a Romae Urbis Dioecesis and that Italia was not Italy
of his own times, but the northern provinces of present-day Italy, Noricum, the Pan-
nonias, and Dalmatia. The reference to Western Regions remains to be analyzed, but
most probably they were the provinces in the western part of Illyricum, claimed by the
papacy for ecclesiastical jurisdiction throughout the Middle Ages.

Valla’s text is distorted in part where it describes the territories transferred to

papal potestas and dicio according to the “iura sanctae Romanae ecclesiae.” While
Valla has listed urbs Roma as being made only now subject to the Pope’s jurisdiction,
the archetype does not refer to jurisdiction over the city of Rome, but to jurisdiction
over the provinces of Rome (Romae urbis . . . provincias). The distinction is important
because the Christian community of Rome was already subject to the “ius Romanae
ecclesiae” and, therefore, it would not be placed under its own jurisdiction again. Fur-
thermore, the provinciae at the time of Constantine were what we call today dioceses,
hence the Romae urbis provinciae could only have been the suburbicarian bishoprics of
the dioeceseos of Rome. In fact, there was in the fourth century a Romae urbis dioecesis,
as well as Romae urbis provinciae. What remains the only tangible concession in the
paragraph is the gift of the Lateran palace. Since the Lateran was part of the city of
Rome, Rome’s legal status in the empire remained unchanged. The right of disposition
in the various territories according to the ius ecclesiae Romanae refers, therefore, to
nonproprietary, ecclesiastical administration of what will be known as church provinces
(in modern terms: dioceses).

The decision to place the suburbicarian bishoprics officially under the jurisdiction

of the bishop of Rome was made by the Council of Nicaea in 325. The bishop of
Rome, like the bishops of Alexandria, Jerusalem, Antioch, and Byzantium, became a
metropolitan bishop or archi-episcopus, an arch-supervisor residing in the mother city
of a diocese. The preeminence in this case was only in matters legal and administrative,

Imre Boba

page 14 of

17

in matters spiritual all bishops remaining equal till modern times.

The imperial recognition of the extended jurisdiction of the Church of Rome gave

Sylvester and his successors, the bishops of Rome, the right of control (disponere =
to attend regularly the affairs) over other Christian communities, as already indicated,
in accordance with ius (justice) as developed and administered by Christians in the
Church of Rome. One should note that the term ius Ecclesiae Romanae is not an
ecclesiatical law (lex, canon) peculiar to the Church in Rome, because the Christians in
Rome did not have their own ecclesiastical law, but followed, like any other Christian
community, the universal laws as defined by the synods, by the Council of Nicaea or
by sundry pronouncements of arbitration (decretals) of bishops of Rome. The ius did
not, therefore, refer to the canon laws, but to the sum of legal practices in civil cases
that had developed in Rome at the civil court of the bishops who acted as judges
in litigations between Christians (audientia episcopalis), a long-standing practice of
all bishops (cf. Corinthians 6, 1-5) recognized by Constantine in 318. Although the
terms disponere and ius had secular and nonspiritual connotations, they did not carry
supreme political, or even delegated, political authority as envisaged by Valla.

Thus, whoever is the author of the Donatio, the text expresses without any am-

biguity that Constantine, as Pontifex Maximus, or the head of the state, confirmed
and made official what was already the tradition: the suburbicarian bishops in the
dioceses of the province of Rome and the bishops of the province of Italia and of the
Regions of the West would adhere to the use of the laws of the Church of Rome. Such
“self-government” of Christian communities of the suburbicarian Roman provinces and
in some other territories in the West, under the coordinating and supervising efforts
of the Church of Rome, had been exercised since the times of Saint Peter either ille-
gally (during the persecutions) or through the Act of Toleration (after 311). Now the
Christians in the core territories of the Roman Empire were given the status enjoyed
already by such Christian communities as Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem, which
had developed autonomous status outside territories governed by lex Romana or ius
Italicum.

Mainly philological comments are provided by Valla also to the subsequent fragment

of the Donatio (in parentheses are the alternate readings in the archetype, in brackets
the omissions).

Unde congruum perspeximus nostrum imperium et regiam (regni) potes-
tatem orientalibus transferri regionibus et in Byzantie provincie (provincia)
[in] optimo loco nomini nostro civitatem edificari et illic nostrum consti-
tui imperium; quoniam ubi princeps (principatus) sacerdotum et christiane
religionis caput constitutum est ab imperatore celesti iustum non est, ut
illic imperator terrenus habeat potestatem. Hec vero omnia, que per hanc
[nostram] imperialem sacram et per alia divalia decreta statuimus et fir-
mamus, usque in finem mundi illabita et inconcussa permanere decrevimus
(permanenda decernimus). (Valla: 34*, 18-20, 29-31; and 35*, 1-3)

There are only two discrepancies between the archetype and the version of the text

used by Valla. Both are, however, significant. The oldest texts mention the trans-

Imre Boba

page 15 of

17

fer of “imperium et regni potestas,” while Valla quoted “imperium et regia potestas.”
In Constantine’s time the archetype’s text conveyed the meaning that the “imperial
authority and power to govern” would be exercised from a new capital, while Rome
would remain the capital of spiritual authority. Valla’s version was actually a text
“corrected” by a scribe of the later Middle Ages. Since at that time the imperium had
already the connotation of “territory,” the scribe corrected the regni potestas to regia
potestas; thus, instead of transfer of imperial authority and executive power to a new
center, Valla could read and understand: transfer of royal authority to a new territorial
empire distinct from an “empire” under the bishop of Rome.

The paragraph, otherwise, seems to be straightforward: the first among the sac-

erdotes, the head of the Christian religion, would remain in Rome, while the earthly
imperator moved to the province of Byzantium. Nevertheless, Valla had to exclaim:
“And you [the forger] call him [the Pope] a ‘heavenly emperor’ because he accepted a
worldly empire; unless by that term you mean God—for you speak ambiguously—and
mean that an earthly sovereignty of priests was established by him over the city of
Rome and other places, in which case you lie.” The text, even Valla’s, has nothing
of the facts he understood to be stated. The text very clearly formulates the concept
that the celestial emperor, i.e., God, had decreed that the headship (principatus) of the
sacerdotes should reside in Rome. Valla also misunderstood the last statement in the
paragraph, and accused the author of the text of calling Constantine once “earthly,”
then “divine” and “holy” (“Modo terrenum te vocaveras, Constantine, nunc divum
sacrumque vocas”). Valla apparently did not know that sacra and divalia decreta were
names used for imperial letters. As in the case of the previously presented quota-
tion here too one can clearly see the underlying principle of the Donatio: to separate
the secular functions from the spiritual, the earthly governmental functions from the
ecclesiastical.

Somewhat puzzling is Valla’s treatment of the last statements of the Donatio:

“. . .this page of the imperial decree we placed, with our own hands, upon the venerable
body of the blessed Peter” (Huius vero imperialis decreti paginam propriis manibus
roborantes super venerandum corpus beati Petri posuimus. Valla, 36*, 15-16). Valla’s
comment on that fragment is that since the document had been “laid away above the
body of the blessed Peter,” and since the document itself would have already rotted
away, nobody can know what was in the document if, indeed, the document had ever
been written. Hence, Valla’s earlier conclusions are confirmed once again: the doc-
ument must have been a forgery. What remains puzzling is that Valla did not seem
to know that solemn oaths often were made over the graves of saints or loved ones in
confirmation of oral or written agreements. In fact, all ecclesiastically administered
oaths were (and still are) taken over the relics of a saint, enshrined in an altar. Such
were the practices also during Valla’s lifetime. Valla must have known that Pepin’s
representatives confirmed his donatio of landed estates (and of political authority) to
the Church of Rome over the grave of St. Peter. Charlemagne in person placed a
document confirming his father’s donatio on the same tomb. This entire digression
appears to be superfluous, however, if one reads the more complete texts of the Do-

Imre Boba

page 16 of

17

natio: “. . .confirming the page . . . we placed it upon the body of . . . Peter; and we
command our successors, emperors, to preserve it, . . . we hand it over to Sylvester and
his successors, pontiffs, for safekeeping . . .” (C.C., 277ff., abbreviated).

? ? ? ? ?

This brief confrontation of the Donatio with Valla’s Oratio shows that his criticism

was directed against a spurious version of the document. The friends and foes of the
papacy during the latter part of the Middle Ages used some distorted versions of the
Donatio although there were hundreds of copies of more complete and less distorted
texts. The recension of the Donatio’s text established by recent scholarship does not of-
fer any basis for papal claims to political supremacy, secular authority, or for exercising
imperial authority in the West. In fact, the papacy never claimed such prerogatives,
be it with reference to the text of the Donatio or to any other argument. The papacy
always insisted on the Gelasian principle of joint leadership of the Christian society by
the “auctoritas sacra pontificum et regalis potestas.” The document, even the version
used by Valla—forgery or not—when analyzed sine ira et studio, amounts to nothing
more than a recognition of the existing self-government of the Church of Rome in the
framework of the still pagan Roman state, under the special preferential treatment by
Emperor Constantine. Constantine relinquished some of his “divine” honors as Pon-
tifex Maximus, his personal honors and some of the official dignities (but not functions)
to the honor and glory of God and the blessed Peter. He also gave some private landed
estates to the churches of Peter and Paul and confirmed the ecclesiastical jurisdiction
of the bishop of Rome over the Christians in several dioceses in the West, thus sanc-
tioning, and possibly extending, the rights of the Church of Rome recognized by the
Ecumenical Council of bishops in 325.

? ? ?

The story of the Donatio has not yet been fully told. The Decretum did not claim

it to be a “document,” but a quotation from the Gesta beati Silvestri. The Gesta
Silvestri itself is a compilation of hagiographic writings and fragments of documents.
There are indications in historiography that parts of the Gesta Silvestri can be credited
to Eusebius, bishop and church historian, friend of Constantine, and contemporary of
bishop Sylvester.

Imre Boba

page 17 of

17